JUDGMENT

Clement Skinner J:

Decision

This appeal raises two rather basic but essential points concerning pleadings. Firstly, in instituting proceedings against another, what must a plaintiff show in his pleadings to enable him to bring and maintain an action. Secondly, if the statement of claim is found to be lacking or deficient, can affidavit evidence make good such deficiency. There are four plaintiffs in this suit but objection has been taken only against the claim of the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs. For convenience, I shall therefore continue to refer to the appellants as the defendants and to the respondents as the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs in this appeal.

The facts of this case are as follows. The 3rd plaintiff, a company duly incorporated with limited liability, is the owner to the extent of 23/32 undivided shares in a piece of Malay reserve land in Kuah, Langkawi, Kedah (hereinafter the said land). The 4th plaintiff, an individual, is the owner of 9/32 undivided shares in the said land. The 1st plaintiff, an individual, is a director of the 2nd plaintiff which is a company duly incorporated with limited liability. The 2nd plaintiff is said to have lent RM900,000 to the 3rd plaintiff to enable the latter to purchase the undivided shares in the said land and agreed to repay the 2nd plaintiff RM1,200,000 by 7 November 1997. The 3rd plaintiff intended to develop the said land into a hotel cum, office complex and has obtained approval for that purpose from the local authorities. The 1st and 2nd defendants are individuals who claim to have been directors of the 3rd plaintiff but who were allegedly wrongfully removed as such directors. To protect their alleged interest, the defendants lodged a caveat against the whole of the said land as a result of which the plaintiffs claim the development of the said land had to be deferred causing them loss and damage, quantified at RM10 million. The plaintiffs have since applied for and obtained the removal of the defendants' caveat against the said land. The plaintiffs now bring this suit in respect of the alleged loss suffered.

On 28 October 1998 the defendants applied to strike out the claim of the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs, under O. 18 r. 19(1) Rules of the High Court (RHC) as disclosing no cause of action or that it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The application was heard by the deputy registrar but dismissed. Hence this appeal.

The statement of claim is to be found specially endorsed on the writ of summons. Order 18 RHC deals with pleadings generally and by r. 7(1) provides that:

Subject to the provision of this rule and rules 10, 11 and 12, every pleading must contain, and contain only, a statement in summary form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which these facts are to be proved, and the statement must be as brief as the nature of the case admits.

In Bruce v. Odhams Press, Ltd [1936] 1 KB at p. 712, Scott LJ said:

The word 'material' means necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action, and if any one 'material' fact is omitted, the statement of claim is bad.

It should hardly need stating then that the basic purpose of O. 18 r. 7(1) is to enable a defendant to know what it is that a plaintiff alleges against him and in doing so, the plaintiff is obliged to state facts sufficient to formulate a complete cause of action.

It will be seen from a reading of the statement of claim that this whole action arises out of the defendants having lodged a caveat against the said land. Paragraph 9 of the statement of claim states that as a result of the caveat, development of a hotel cum office complex on the 23/32 undivided shares of the said land had to be deferred as a result of which the plaintiffs sufferred financial losses and damages.

However, the statement of claim shows that only the 3rd and 4th plaintiffs are ow